December 30, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Recently a friend pointed out to me how many "supposed
Christians" in history owned slaves, including the
Puritans and George Washington. He pointed to
verses in the Bible that seem to indorse slavery. Of
course his reason was to argue that if God is real and if God changes people,
how come these things are found in Christian history? This is a two part
objection: first is the Bible’s text, second is the behavior of Bible followers.

First, just because the Bible says to treat your slaves
well does not mean it endorses the concept. It also gives instructions on
divorce procedures, but
Jesus Himself said it was not because divorce was a good thing. This is not
intended to be a theological blog, so let me quickly move on to the second
objection.

To scoff at Christians in history for owning slaves is to
target one group for what all of mankind shares guilt. The real question is not
"Who was doing it?" (everybody), but "Who stopped it?" This world-wide scourge
was first halted in Christendom through the efforts of devout Christians, such
as Thomas Clarkson, John Newton, and William
Wilberforce. This Christmas I caught for the first time the words of the
hymn, "O Holy Night."
The third stanza begins

Truly He taught us to love one another;
His law is love and His Gospel is peace.
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His Name all oppression shall cease.

This was penned in France in 1847, only one year before
France finally ended slavery. It was 40 years afterBrittan banned the
trade of slaves, 15 years afterall British slaves
were freed, but 12 years before theAmerican Civil
War. Yes, it took a while, and much blood was shed in attacking a plight
that permeates all of human history, but correction began in Christendom, and I’m
afraid the battle must still continue.

Posted in Culture & society, History | No Comments »

December 23, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

This YouTube video presents a turning point in my life. When I went before my
dissertation committee, I was basically an agnostic who wanted to believe that
God is real. The evidence and attitudes I had experienced in my PhD program had
stripped me of any confidence in God’s existence. Everything, and I mean
everything, could be and was explained with no reference to God, including
god-consciousness itself. Then came the day that my dissertation process was
stopped by certain committee members who inadvertently discovered that I lacked
confidence in Darwinian evolution as a sufficient explanation for the origin and
diversity of life. I was forced to profess belief in Darwinism, without any
consideration of opposing empirical or theoretical evidence, in order to proceed
with my degree plan. It did not matter that my particular dissertation, or even
my chosen field, had little to do with Darwin’s theory.

I never remember the word "religion" being mentioned in
that encounter, but the message was loud and clear. Suddenly it made sense why I
had never heard any arguments to balance the atheistic materials in my course
work. Suddenly it made sense why the attitudes and beliefs around me were so
consistently atheistic. It made sense why peer-reviewed journals contained so
little confession of the obvious shortfalls in evolutionary theory. I had
thought it was because the academics were more learned, deeper thinkers,
pursuers of truth at all costs, uninhibited by the superstitions and traditions
of men. Silly me! Just the opposite was unfolding right before my eyes. Opposing
evidence was selectively and systematically being filtered out. Peer review
doesn’t work if dissenters cannot become peers. If some work so hard to suppress
the evidence, then the evidence must be stronger than I thought.

There was one principle I had learned about culture,
through my international travels, even before pursuing my PhD in sociology. That
was that the most powerful ideas of a culture are never voiced. They are passed
on and reinforced by the way things are done, and depend as much on what is not
said as upon what is said. If they were voiced, they could be questioned. If
they could be questioned, then they could be rejected. But if dissention is
never heard, then change never happens. It is a uniting and sustaining force of
any culture; and academia is a culture.

Don’t get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for scholarly
work and academe. The far majority of scientists function productively with no
sinister intent in the taboo within which they live, that no evidence can ever
be interpreted as supporting a higher being, no matter how outlandish the
alternative explanations may be. If pressed on the issue, most will say, if they
are willing to discuss the issue at all, that religion must be kept out of
science; not realizing that the position that God never has, would, or could
intervene in the universe IS a religious position. They consider themselves to
be open-minded, all the while wearing blinders.

It reminds me of when I was dating the woman who later
became my wife. She candidly remarked once that certain subjects were taboo at
my families’ dinner table. I had never thought about it. I simply obeyed the
rules unconsciously. When I pointed out the same about her family, she flatly
denied it.. until I gave her examples.

For some it is more serious. When confronted with the idea
that Darwinism deserves critique, some I have encountered react with such
irrational forcefulness that it could be compared to standing on their air hose.
That critique is interpreted as threat tells me that critique is not only valid
but needed. It tells me there are deeper reasons than logic for avoiding
consideration. It tells me that for them protection is more important than
truth. It suggests that there is a fear that God just might really be there.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »

December 16, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Ron Hubbard is convinced man is basically good; the
Bible says man is basically sinful. I have come to believe that where one
falls on this issue bears on how one sees virtually every other issue. Gun
control is for those who see man as basically good, because if we take away
guns, people will be good. It’s the weapons that are bad. It’s the same concept
that Obid
expressed in verse 2,000 years ago, when he said that the Iron Age began strong
weapons and thus the corruption of man. If man is basically good, then we should
be able to talk out our differences with other nations instead of going to war.
If man is basically good, then we should not have a death penalty, because the
criminals are just misguided. If man is basically good, then welfare should work
smoothly, because people will not take advantage of the system. Democracies will
flourish, because no one will seek power over others. If man is basically good,
then there will be a Utopian government some day, because the basic building
blocks of government are all the good people. And evolution must be true,
because every generation is a little better than the one before. The very idea
that somewhere in the distant past man chose to go into a fallen state is
perfectly unacceptable to any of the above. It makes more sense that if man is
basically good, then man is moving toward God. No, better yet: Man is becoming
God.

But the only democracy that lasts is one that has a balance
of power. Three branches of government work not because the rulers are good, but
because no one branch can overpower the other two. The
"invisible hand" of economics works not because people produce for the sake of others, but because
competing self-interests drives up production and drives down prices. It works
for people to bear arms, because no one will let anyone else take control.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, History | No Comments »

December 9, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

OK, if you go to this website, the painting is grotesque, but don’t let that distract you from the point here: In the last paragraph of this critique of a book on ugliness, the article’s author makes the following criticism of the book’s author: "If he had included the writings of evolutionary biologists, he might have told us why [universal disgust of certain sensations] could be so. That he shows no awareness of post-Darwinian science can mean only that he isn’t serious about locating the sources of aesthetic feelings." The author of the article is saying that he cannot respect a researcher who makes no reference to evolution, even if the subject matter is art. The article’s author is probably eluding to writings by biologists such as Edward O. Wilson and his theory that our sense of what is aesthetic comes from evolution toward what provides us food, shelter, and security.

My question is, why should evolution be invoked if aesthetic expression (and therefore aesthetic feeling) has never been observed to evolve? And it has not. Sure, technology has advanced, such as available media and geometry of perspective, but not expression of the heart nor talent of the artist. No one who really knows art can look at the cave paintings of Chauvet and say they are "primitive" in terms of aesthetic expression or talent. As a matter of fact, when they were first discovered in about 1835, they were assumed to be the work ofCelts, only a thousand or so years earlier. That being the case, I would suggest that the article’s author may need to look outside his box for what aesthetics really are.

To require reference to a particular theory in order to be taken as "serious" is to require a mind that is closed to ideas outside the theory. He is saying that the theory is fundamental to understanding anything and everything, and no theory can hold that ground. That requirement belongs within a given world view. That requirement is a religious requirement, not a universal one, and certainly not a scientific one.

Posted in Culture & society, History, Science and faith | No Comments »

December 2, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

I won’t make a lot of comment on this, because the evidence
pretty well speaks for itself. Please consider the following two websites: 
Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE), and Texas Citizens for Science (TCS).
Each highlights news items; each relates them to Texas
education. Sounds like they are both on the same page, right? Look a little
closer. They are polar opposites in their definitions of science. One supports
all scientific views, and one supports only those that are in line with
Darwinian evolution. Perhaps I should say one is for real science and one is for
diluting science with religious claims. It depends on which site you use to
describe the other.

My comments will be brief, because they are not about the
rightness or wrongness of these opposite views, but about their approaches to
the issue and the way each portrays the other. Check it out: On the TCS site you
will find words like "illegitimate" and "distort" to describe opposing views. In
their Nov 29th entry they frame an event as "part of a
duplicitous marketing
campaign created by Intelligent Design Creationists of the Discovery Institute
to damage science education in general, and biological evolution instruction in
particular." They are correct in putting "intelligent Design" and "Discovery
Institute" in the same sentence, but no where will you find the words
Intelligent Design and Creationists juxtaposed on either an intelligent design
or creationist website. Do a Google search on "intelligent design creationists,"
and see how many of those sites claim to be either ID or creationist in
viewpoint. The answer is zip. Only Darwinian evolution sites use that phrase to
lump two distinct views together.

Then check out the other site. To describe the same event,
TBSE says the person resigned after rules violations, and they site the
Austin American-Statesman newspaper. The TCS site cites only themselves,
even in the site they cite. TCS uses words like duplicitous and
mendacious to describe
their opposition. TBSE gives little effort to sophisticated or even plain
adjectives to describe either their own or opposing views, apparently content to
allow the facts to speak for themselves. TBSE makes no effort to prevent
Darwinian views from being presented in schools, and in fact argues for both
"strengths and weaknesses" to be presented. TCS is all about preventing
alternative views.

I see no need to discuss the two views here. I find a
lesson in simply looking at tactics. Without even investigating the arguments
further, which one would you suspect of "illegitimate" accusations or to "distort" the facts? Which
would seem more likely to have a bias concerning religion?

Posted in Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »